I like to think of myself as a responsible journalist. I choose words carefully, with an analytical awareness of the power they carry. So why would I write such a headline for this blog post? I am following the example set by the Jamaica media to illustrate just how irresponsible it is when it comes to reporting on sensitive topics.
Journalists write the first draft of history (I forget who said that, either Heidegger or Max Weber), so time is of the essence. Especially in a 24/7 news cycle. We are going to make mistakes. We are going to select the wrong word or misspell someone’s name or create an inflammatory story, even with the best of intentions. But even under the pressure of deadlines, we must be governed by a set of ethics and standards that respect the people and situations we write about.
Here in Jamaica, however, editors at both of the main newspapers appear to disregard this responsibility when it comes to writing about issues relating to homosexuals, all-sexuals and transgender people. The situation is so egregious that a lawyer and human rights activist is taking legal action against the Jamaica Observer.
Reporters routinely write about a group of “miscreant” gays who, in their eyes, cause havoc and harm in the corporate area. It is a fact that a group of marginalized (many of whom are homeless and victims themselves) people at times harass others, however, the way in which the newspapers cover this issue is sensational, disrespectful and inflammatory.
On Sunday, as people reveled at Bacchanal (a road march with floats, soca music, costumes and dancing) a group of individuals were dancing. The Observer referred to them as “cross-dressers”, the Gleaner as “alleged gays.” Even as everyone enjoyed themselves, this situation devolved so much that the police had to fire shots to break up the crowd, a store was damaged and a few people were injured.
This was clearly a serious, dangerous situation. However, we do not know the facts other than what the reporters delivered. The story was portrayed such that a group of men, possibly gay and possibly dressed in what people would traditionally regard as women’s clothing, were dancing provocatively. Apparently, this bothered other celebrants, despite the fact that this is what you do at Bacchanal. In other words, this group was behaving like every other person there. However, it seems some people took issue with what this particular group of men were doing and started harassing them. We don’t have enough factual accuracy to know who is to blame. Probably both sides are, to different degrees, but dancing provocatively does not seem to be enough of an affront to deserve a violent confrontation.
At issue is not only the unnecessary violence, but also the way in which reporters portrayed the incident. Do the reporters know for a fact that these men are gay? Do they know for a fact that they are cross-dressers? I suspect not. Does this even matter? Why are these facts relevant? I argue that the facts, once verified, are indeed relevant, given the level of homophobia in Jamaica. But if these facts are reported free of context and sensitivity, they become dangerous in that they heighten the tension and reinforce stereotypes.
Witness the Observer’s statement: “The melée was sparked by the actions of the gay men who — mostly dressed in skimpy, tight-fitting outfits — gyrated to the soca music blasting from music trucks while showing off acrobatic moves.” No. In fact, the “melee’ was sparked by the first individual who threw something.
Witness the Gleaner’s description: “As the people objected to the men gyrating on each other, a missile-throwing exchange started.” No. It was not a “missile”, it was a rock, or a bottle, or whatever else was throw. The word missile, again, is inflammatory and sensational. As I have stated before, words matter. They can unite or divide, they can reinforce prejudice or neutralize a situation.
In North America, the details about the group’s alleged sexuality and appearance would have been relevant in that the story would likely have been portrayed as a hate crime. Sympathies would most likely have been with the “gay” men and “cross-dressers.” Here in Jamaica, the media seems to have a mandate to further marginalize this group. Taking it a step further, I would argue that they demonize this group, eschewing all journalistic responsibility and ethics. (I must add that the media’s irresponsibility is not restricted to this group; they continue to sensationalize and exploit people from lower socio-economic groups.)
This situation is unacceptable and despicable. I do realize I am viewing this situation through my Canadian eyes, and I do not intend to disregard the importance of Jamaican values, but respect and accuracy in reporting are universal values when it comes to journalism.
Take a look at the closest thing the profession has to universal standards and rules: the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. One of the tenets is to minimize harm. To continue to further marginalize, sensationalize and demonize this group of individuals is to perpetuate a harmful cycle. Here are a few of the specific tenets:
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Jamaica’s media violates all of these on a regular basis. They do not have to. They have a choice in the matter. Perhaps one day they will choose to do the right thing.
Jamaican Journal 
Pingback: My unexpected appearance in HRW report | Jamaican Journal
Kate, seriously…firstly, in response to your statement “behaving like every other person there” – I didn’t see anyone else in the crowd climbing atop a bus stop only to ‘wine’ while in a handstand in plain view (in the middle of Half-Way-Tree where the ‘common’ and less tolerant Jamaican is known to frequent), and the level of flamboyancy displayed by SOME (not all) of the homosexual revelers was in poor taste, full stop. Persons need to just get real and recognize that the issue faced by the Jamaican gay community is one of respect…and the common and banal antics displayed by SOME members of this community are exactly the spark that keeps fueling this fire of disgust and abhorrence.
I can understand how, in a world where cultures and civilizations progressively try to adopt each others norms and customs as their own in an apparent effort to homogenize humanity, it may seem alarming that Jamaica doesn’t appear to swiftly embrace the gay phenomenon. However, honest, investigative and fair reporting would inform the international public that there are, in fact, KNOWN and OPEN homosexuals in Jamaica who are not merely accepted/tolerated but who play key roles in daily life. These men are never in the position where “missiles” are hurtled at them by bystanders on the street (by the way, there’s nothing wrong with the use of the word missile there as an accepted definition of the word missile is: an object that is forcibly propelled at a target, by hand or mechanically).
In my opinion, there are no innocent victims here. While the bystanders had no right to hurl objects at the homosexual revelers, they have every right to express their disapproval and disagreement with the overly rambunctious behavior of a section of gay ‘bacchanalists’. As for the revelers themselves, adults are generally aware that actions lead to reactions and if you know your actions are provocative (which is a fact they were all aware of) then be prepared to deal with the responses they will most likely elicit. I just hate the fact that Jamaicans are always portrayed as base and backward savages whenever these incidents occur, when the real culprits (in my opinion) are often a handful of tactless persons trying to flaunt/parade their sexuality in front of the rest of a resistant (yet slowly evolving) Jamaican society.
Hello, first, thank you for reading and your thoughtful comment. For the most part, I agree with what you are saying. I intended to be very careful in what I was saying as I know there is a tendency to portray Jamaica as you stated in your last paragraph. This was not my intention. I was merely trying to highlight the media’s role and responsibility in the situation, where I feel most qualified to comment, as I am a journalist. I was not there, so I can’t comment on what people were or were not doing, or whether or not they deserved the reaction. But you are right, if you behave a certain way to such an extreme, you can expect a certain reaction.
Hi again (and this is also in response to Petchary),
Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I may have been too harsh with the disingenuous comment. But I think that sometimes we end up distancing the people we seek to engage if we don’t at least try to appreciate their perspectives. And I think that for the majority of Jamaicans they would consider two men dancing together as not the same thing as a man and a woman – or even two women (such are the double standards eh). Now I see where you are coming from – but I would not be dismissive of the perspective that they were doing something different – even though they may have been dressed just the same and dancing just the same as everyone else. For us, the fact that of the masculine gender sameness makes it very different. What you seek to do is change this perspective – but my advice is to appreciate it and engage it in the discussion – don’t dismiss it.
Take care.
PS – Petchary, we will have to disagree about missiles. I see it ALL the time.
OK, I will keep a look out for those missiles in future! (I know that little man in North Korea is very fond of them…) 🙂 And I guess you are right about the “difference” – depends which way you look at it…
Relevant post. I agree with your concerns, but have some critical comments about some of what you said. I think you see this issue through human eyes – as well as at times through Canadian eyes.
First of all, I share your reaction and concern about the headline and story writing – I myself cringe a lot of times when I read these headlines and articles. In fact, when I saw the Gleaner and Observer teasers on Twitter about the incident I didn’t even want to read the articles – I was cringing already. This is the human(e) reaction.
However, your paragraph 6 betrays what seems to be a different – but obviously related – concern. In it you express your thoughts on the treatment of the dancers by the crowds that had gathered. This paragraph has nothing to do with the journalists – but rather seems to be more an expression of your (apparent) disgust with how the dancers were treated (and no doubt the homophobic elements of Jamaica). Again, I share some of your sympathies in this regard – but I don’t think that: (a) commenting on whether or not such dancing deserved that reaction is of relevance to the REPORTING of the issue; and (b) I think you are being rather disingenuous to suggest that these persons were “behaving like everyone else there”. I think that writing like this only inflames the very people that you should seek to engage with articles like these. Argue that there should be tolerance for this behaviour – don’t disregard the fact that many people (and not just homophobic ‘unenlightened’ ones) view this behaviour as very different – with I would add, just cause to do so.
In relation to your thoughts on the use of missile – perhaps this is a case of Canadian eyes as the definition for missile is: an object forcibly propelled at a target either by HAND or mechanical weapon. Having read our local newspapers for decades, ‘missile’ is used in any case in which objects are thrown and you will see this in dozens of reports each year regardless of the particular circumstances. I doubt that most Jamaicans see ‘missile’ and think it to be “inflammatory and sensational”. It is just a standard journalistic practice whenever the thrown objects cannot be identified.
Anyway – as I said at the beginning – I share your general concern with some of our journalism.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate your concerns. In the sixth paragraph, I was attempting to contrast the treatment of this group of men, who were doing the same as everyone else (I attended Jouvert on Friday, so I feel confident in saying this) with the treatment of their fellow celebrants. One group was attacked, the rest of the people doing the same thing were not. True, I am indeed editorializing that violence is undeserved, especially in response to provocative dancing, so you are right, this is not a relevant comment when it comes to the reporting itself. But again, we don’t really know the full story.
As for the word missile, yes, this betrays my Canadian point of view. I find this word, while accurate, to be slightly too dramatic. But if it is used on a regular basis, then I guess people are accustomed to its use.
I am not sure that the word “missile” is used that regularly by local media. And I worked as a media liaison officer for years so was always studying their language. I don’t think it has anything to do with your being Canadian. But local media do use sensational language quite a bit (like this word “warhead” which I think means a bullet, and so on). And YES – they WERE behaving like everyone else there – it’s carnival, for God’s sake – and I don’t see why there is “just cause” to see it as “different.” That is VERY disingenuous I think…
It’s true. It really IS routine. I almost shrugged my shoulders when I read these reports. An online news blog also described them as “brazen” by the way (chatychaty.com). I suspect though that it was not the celebrants themselves who were angry (revelers don’t usually carry/throw “missiles”) but the crowd of hangers-on and onlookers, who don’t really participate, just watch from the sidelines. Perhaps they were looking out for these “brazen” people. But thanks for reminding us that this kind of reporting is quite an everyday thing.
Thanks for reading Emma. Glad you enjoyed the post.
Excellent post, thanks! this kind of flagrant violation of decency in reporting is so routine one doesn’t even react to it any more…glad you’ve put this spolight on this one–
Thanks Annie, I hope it doesn’t become routine to me too.